Can someone explain this to me in a nutshell? The forums at Makeup Alley are just too frustrating to read--you have to click on each individual reply in return instead of having them all concatenated (as happens here)--and the forums on Basenotes don't have much information.

I don't understand how such a thing can even be banned, anyway. Say I was into (to grab a random expensive example) jewelry-making. Say I bought a pound of Swarovski crystals, knowing I'd never be able to use them all up, and then swapped or sold a few one-ounce bags to like-minded jewelry-makers. Is that wrong? Am I depriving Swarovski of sales? After I've bought the package, do I not own them and have the right to dispose of them as I wish?

Is it pressure from the companies that sell fragrances? Do they feel they're losing sales? Do they not understand that people who are passionately devoted to scents want small quantities of a scent before they invest in a larger bottle, and love companies that make this possible?

Whatever it is, it's infuriating. It makes me want to start selling and swapping decants, just to piss them off.

I dont' think that is a good analogy, in fact, there aren't a lot of good analogies for perfume. When you decant, say, Chanel no. 5, all sorts of things can happen to change the fragrance, even if only inadvertently. And Chanel has no "quality control" over this process, and no way to prevent unscrupulous sellers from diluting the product, or using dirty decanting equipment, or what have you.

Then you are selling it as "Chanel no. 5", e.g., representing it as being the original product. The buyer might in fact get something that really isn't exactly like Chanel no. 5, and this has the potential to harm Chanel. So it isn't about lost sales per se, at least not to my mind.

To go back to your Swarovski post, it is different because if you sell the beads, they will not be altered in any way.

Don't get me wrong: I love being able to buy decants! But I can understand why perfume houses would like to see the practice stop.

By the way: to see all posts on a thread at MUA, click on the little perfume bottle icon at the top left of the individual thread!

Robin, when you buy something it is your personal property. Period. I see your argument as to the fact it may be tweaked, damaged, etc., and oh, boo hoo, I'll add, poor Chanel. Feh. They don't take any action against IFRA, but they stomp the many very well-respected, respectful, conscientious decanters who actually may be building up future purchases for them.

Idiots!

And this is from someone who never bought or sold a decant in her life.

Please note that I was just using Chanel as an example -- I have no idea which companies are behind the Ebay decision!

And not arguing with you, but can only say the law is not on your side in terms of "you buy something, it is your personal property": just look at the music industry and DRM.

Hi R
I realized as soon as I posted it I should have written "Chanel, et al". Of course they're not the only ones pushing for this.

Not sure what goes on in the music industry, or the book industry, for that matter. So what's to stop someone from selling used dvds, cds, or books?

Don't even know the answer, and don't want to go too far afield in the legal stuff, but do want to add it will HURT the perfume companies in the long run. It's the sale of decants that fuels sales for folks who are not near major stores or boutiques and would not otherwise have a chance to sample the perfume.

I think it will hurt the more obscure niche companies especially -- for some companies, ebay was nearly the only way to try something.

I'm not going to get into a huge discussion about this, but I have two comments:

1) DRM isn't a good example because, even though I disagree with <i>that</i>, too, and even though it doesn't work, its purpose is to prevent infinite duplication: since the data exists in the form of bits, it's theoretically possible to turn a single CD/DVD into an infinite supply. That clearly isn't the case with fragrance: if someone buys a bottle and divides it into twenty decants, then once those decants have been sold and used, more of the scent has to be bought. It isn't reproducible as music and movies are.

2) I'm not buying the adulteration argument, either, because that's true of everything that's salable on eBay or any street corner. There's big money to be had in making fake Gucci bags, Rolexes, and Chanel perfumes; banning the sale of decants isn't going to make a particle of difference in that. Most eBay decant sellers (and MUA and Basenotes swappers) are honest people; allowing them to divide up their fragrances and sell or swap them doesn't hurt the company or its reputation in any way, unless the company believes, stupidly, that everyone who bought or swapped a decant would in fact have bought a full-sized bottle--the same nonsensical, fallacious argument that software companies have been promulgating for years.

My point about DRM was simply that you don't always own what you buy (in the sense that you can do what you like with something you have purchased), not that music was like fragrance.

On point number 2, I don't want to get into a huge discussion either, LOL -- let's just say that thought decants would get banned from ebay much sooner than they did, and like everyone else, I'm sorry to see them go!

I have been the victim of an ebay perfume decant fraud. What I bought, or thought I had bought, and what I recieved, were two totally different scents. The seller either altered, watered down, or substituted. I can understand that the perfume houses would not want this kind of thing to happen. What if I were buying a Chanel (just sayin') decant off of ebay, to decide if I wanted to buy a full bottle in a store, and what I received was a decant filled with one of those "if you like blablabla, you'll love our version" -- and it was being sold to me as an authentic decant?

P, I am sure you are not the only one who has had that experience!

The perfume companies' concern that decanters may dilute or otherwise alter the juice is a valid one. But what's the risk of that compared to the positives that reputable decanters bring to the table? Let's list them:

1. Allows potential customers to sample easily and relatively cheaply.

2. Allows customers who cannot afford FB to purchase some amount. Decanters purchase FB's for inventory.

3. Decanters market the juice. They're like an unpaid sales staff.

4. Availability of samples & decants create buzz. Buzz fuels demand. Otherwise, who knows or cares about your newest release? Exclusivity is all and well, but too much exclusivity equals obscurity.

I can't argue with any of that -- I would dearly love to be able to go on buying & swapping decants! Some scents (SL exclusives, for instance) would hardly be known in the US otherwise. Can only say that if I was SL, I'd still probably rather not have my fragrances sold/swapped as decants despite the benefits.

Oh Gawd, does this mean I'm going to have to start paying attention to MUA again? (I grew to find the whole thing disspiriting and overly complicated...) Like P above, I have a hard time understanding how this is legal, and assume it must be due to pressure from the fragrance companies. Don't they know that they release such an ever-growing amount of crap each year that we have to do some serious weeding? I hope the wonderful sellers I have dealt with will continue to sell decants through their own ecommerce sites - *and* I will not be frequenting eBay in the future (I always found dealing with the company itself to be an enormous pain in the rear, anyway.)

And is there a thread that explains what we are supposed to do about discontinued scents? Thanks, R!

There was a question about discontinued scents on basenotes but didn't see an answer.

I will be thrilled if some of the sellers continue to sell at their own ecommerce sites, but can't see how any of them can take the legal risk. Grant has just posted at Basenotes that he is doing what he is doing because he doesn't have the financial resources to risk a legal battle -- you can see his post here:

http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=195198

Surely MUA won't limit swapping? How can it, anyway - short of driving people to swap their 'real' email addresses and carry on that way? Apart from those who say they'll take "OA" or whatever, swapping is free. Do they *really* have any right to stop the free exchange of people's property (I'm thinking Constitutional stuff, here)?

I don't see what is to stop MUA if that is what they decide. I'm lighting another candle, LOL...

Already mentioning OA is not allowed on MUA. The fact that some members still have it on their notepads is only due to the mods' lack of time or manpower to check every single notepad. The owners of any website or message board can do whatever they want. We may not like it, but that's how it should be - especially when being a member is free.

For anyone wondering, OA = "other arrangements" and is a MUA euphemism for selling, which is forbidden on the swap boards there.

And on your point, J -- yes, they can do as they like, and I am sure they will :-)

For the record, I have absolutely NO objection to "OA" 's being outlawed: I am there to swap, as I believe that's what it's meant for. It annoys me when people suggest OA for something for which I want to swap.

As for their being free to regulate what we do with our own belongings - surely that's a matter of civil liberties? Then again, I suppose you might argue that their 'liberty' is being used to stop others doing that on thier web site.

Tricky issues.

ACK! I meant "THEIR", of course. Sorry about the mis-spelling!

We're still free to do what we want with our belongings as long as we don't use their 'home' (i.e. website or message board) to advertise it on.

Don't see how civil liberties come into play here: it is a private website, and they are free to regulate swapping there however they like.

Absolutely!

Sorry, that's my ignorance of the Constitution: I'm not a citizen, and I haven't studied it; I just made erroneous assumptions!

No worries! I wish we had a constitutional right to decants -- free at that -- but we don't :-)

Tis a shame. I found the BN wardrobe section to be awful to navigate and swap through, most people don't keep it updated, though that may change now.

If MUA follows suit, I think the Basenotes wardrobe section is going to become VERY popular.

Okay, taking a different tack here. (I buy decants but don't sell). I have never, to the best of my knowledge, gotten a bad sample. However, eBay is RIFE with fakes -- handbags, shoes, jewelry, anything worth conerfeiting. And they wring their stupid hands and allow people to post long articles about how to (one hopes) avoid fakes -- but frankly I don't see eBay doing much about all the obvious counterfeiters (and Chanel products would be an excellent example there.) So why pick on the decanters? Because it's small? I bet several semi-trucks worth of fake goods sell on eBay EVERY DAY, and they just cluck and count their stock options, but they're bowing under pressure ... from whom? The manufacturers? Why not ban all sales of designer goods while they're at it, if they're so interested in protecting buyers?

Yeah, you can tell. I am furious.

Furthermore, are perfume retailers allowed to continue to sell samples? What is the legal distinction between luckyscent and an ebayer? I don't understand this at all - it seems like more corporate Goliathing, just like the copyright laws driven by the Disney people, etc. I am all for quality control, but ebay is the ultimate province of caveat emptor, and their feedback policy should be enough "control." At least that is the position they have taken with regard to the many fakes, counterfeits, etc. out there. Buyers aren't completely stupid, mindless drones who need this kind of protection, in my opinion!

If perfume retailers stop selling samples, I'll need to find a new hobby.

When you say "pick on the decanters" -- look, Ebay is in the business of helping people buy and resell goods, many of which are "used" in some sense or another. My guess is that they will protect their legal rights to continue with that business in every possible area that they can, and that if they've given up the fight on this one, it is because they have to. I don't think their interest is in "protecting buyers", it is in making money.

But just guessing, and can't argue with the fact that it isn't "fair" in the sense that more obviously fake goods continue to be sold.

This reminds me of a topic I saw, I think, on the PBS show "Gourmet." A fella in Chicago is selling fois gras sausage sandwiches. A local alderman is looking to outlaw the selling of fois gras because it may come from abused, forced-fed fowl. So the fast-food restaurateur said he'll stop selling those sausage sandwiches, but he'll GIVE them away with a $7 French fries order (wink-wink).

The companies that selling decanting supplies have got to be just as ticked off as the rest of us. Now a smart fragrance company will recognize this shift in the industry and step forward with a new method of sampling availability. There is still a demand for samples/decants. Unfortunately, I don't see any kind of boycotting being effective in turning around this tide.

Perfume companies have historically not shown themselves to care much about "sampling availability". Many companies make it so hard to try their products that one can only assume that their primary goal is not to actually sell their product so much as to preserve their aura of exclusivity. So I am not hopeful on that score!

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing! Of course swapping itself won't be prohibited, merely Basenotes' (and possibly MUA's) facilitation thereof. In other words, individuals who contact each other directly can always swap, like friends sending each other gifts. Hey, maybe that's the legal loophole -- just call it a RAOK board instead of a swap board. ;-) (Kidding--I know that won't work either.)

I am not by any means an authority on this, but will add from a business perspective. We have been in contact with several Niche' perfumeries, getting info. on their product and resale policies. This is for our shop in Ohio. Many have strict guidelines as to what can be purchased and how they want it displayed. Some provide testers with purchase, Some require the purchase of entire collections in multiples of anywhere from six to twenty four. As a buyer I have to be concerned with both my budget and my ability to do justice by the products I will carry. Unless decants are acceptable to the companies, I will not provide them. Only whatever samples and "extras" fit into their particular agenda.
On the other side of the fence, as a perfumer, I am very cautious as to who I decidie to work with on the resale of my own fragrances. I have rules, as everyone else does. and find that I turn down more people than I actually end up working with.
Perhaps where ebay and the public forum are concerned, it is a matter of people selling without being an established/legal business. Since there is a specific protocol for resale of fragrance. The frqagrance companies and their reps. who sell a particular scent or scents, expect that the protocol be followed. If a person wishes to sell a particular brand, they may have to work out arrangements with the companies, as we are doing now.
I guess that it boils down to the public acpect of this. If people share scents with each other in private, it is a private affair. But when it is in a public forum, where everyone can jump on the bandwagon, it starts to look a lot more like a business transation than a friendly exchange. Apparentlay that is the case, since it has garnered such attention.
Best, ZZ

Great points, thanks for commenting!

Hi K! Nobody can stop all swapping or decanting, it is true! And to be honest, most of my swapping these days is done outside the system anyway.

This is terrible news, R. Not living in or near a very happening city, I am completely dependent upon online retailers and Ebay decanters for samples of niche fragrances. And I worry that if the decanters migrate to another or their own website, what is to stop the perfume companies from shutting those down as well?

Keeter speaks for many of us. I would never have become a consumer of a-n-y fragrances if I hadn't gotten into the buying and swapping of samples and decants. Jo Malone is a prime example of a company that makes it hard to sample their scents. Today they have me as a life-long, full-bottle-buying customer because I first bought a sample and then a decant of Black Vetyver Cafe. But how will the next "quarryjoy" become addicted to BVC? (Frederic Malle and some other companies are wonderful about introducing each new consumer to their frags.) Aren't the hold-outs, like JM, shooting themselves in the collective foot by estranging all of us who live nowhere near a boutique?

I'm grateful I got caught up in this magnificent hobby when I did. And I grieve for the generations to come who will miss out because a door of opportunity has been boarded shut.

What an interesting perspective -- I would have said the opposite. JM gives me all the samples I want at my local NM, whereas FM refuses to send me anything -- although I know others have been luckier.

But the door isn't boarded shut yet: almost every line I now know, I learned about via swapping at MUA. I am still hopeful on that front!

K, a number of the decanters are already setting up their own "fragrance mall", and I guess they'll have to hope that their activities are small scale enough not to attract attention. I can only assume none of them have the resources to deal with a legal battle...

While it is possible that Bond or someone would try and shut down some sales at a private website, to do so would simply result in those perfumes no longer being decanted and sold, with a great big old notice on the front page that XXX Company did not want their fragrances to be sold here.

That would be my version, if I were a perfume company, of a PR nightmare. It is basically saying you want to make it difficult for people to actually smell what you make to determine for themselves if it is any good.

Most niche perfume companies realize the good exposure they get from reputable decant/sample sellers. If they don't, then they just don't get sold. I've sold off almost all of my Bond scents and won't ever buy another one because of their attitude, which they are perfectly within their rights to assert, but how their customers and potential customers react and form opinions of their product based on 090their stance is within their rights as well.

Perfume is a commodity and anyone can break bulk on it and resell.

P, as I said above, will be thrilled to see independent ecommerce sites selling decants, so I wish you luck!

Hi there!

I just wanted to comment on why this might be illegal. Aside from any intellectual property/trademark issues, there are major restrictions, both state and federal, on the sale of cosmetics in any form. For example, in California, manufacturers of cosmetics (including perfume) must get a permit from the state, and that involves having your production facility inspected for hygeine and cleanliness. It's expensive and complicated, and it applies not only to manufacturers, but to people who repackage cosmetics (including people decanting perfumes, presumably).

I think there's a safety and hygeine issue in addition to a quality control/trademark issue.

All good points, although I don't think this was the issue at Ebay -- I understand the new regulations are related to their VERO program, so assuming they fall under intellectual property/copyright issues.

That is my understanding, too.
I sell decants on my website and don't intend to stop. Actually, I've been thinking of adding some new scents every month since people can't get them on ebay any more.

I could be wrong, but I really don't think the big companies can stop me.

So far, they don't appear to have tried to stop any independent sellers. We'll have to hope that continues...

This is dreadful news. I rely heavily on eBay to get hold of many samples; I haven't done much swapping because it would have to be transatlantic, and I don't like putting people to the bother. I'm happy to pay for samples, anyway. I can understand the issues of contaminated/diluted samples (I've heard loads of such stories on MUA), but I'm not sure the number of sales lost through sloppy/dishonest practices outweighs the sales gained by exposing the juice to a wider audience. The whole ethos of eBay is that you're buying a pig in a poke - the only reassurance of quality you have is the seller's feedback - if you remove perfume decants then you ought to remove second-hand electronic equipment, branded sports clothes, designer goods...in fact, most of what eBay sells!

It occurs to me that, if the decants were 'labelled' differently, in some nefarious coded fashion, the complaining companies would have great problems identifying the goods and proving what was happening. I'd be happy to buy 'Size S Water No. 34567' from Diane or Patty or any of the other great sellers (of course, this would need some kind of reference system). Or it could be possible to buy, say, an Air Guitar for $4.00, and have the seller generously throw in a sample of something scented as a nice gift. :D

LOL -- I'll buy that air guitar! I'm happy to pay for samples too, and wish more companies would sell them on their own, but I do understand why many choose not to.

If I can't buy decants, I'm probably finished with new releases. One sample is rarely enough for me to make a decision about full bottle-worthiness.

Okay, I'll make an exception for Ormonde Jayne.

I'll make the same exception for OJ, of course!

I have only been reading this blog for a few months. BTW, I really like it! : ) Anyway, I had never heard of a swap or buying decants until a few months ago. However, the idea did not appeal to me. I understand wanting to try a fragrance before buying it, but if you have never tried it how do you know that the product you receive is authentic? So, even though you might spend $25 for a decant of a $100 parfum is it really worth it? I don't want to buy a partial bottle of wine.

Furthermore, samples are very easy to find. I just ordered another bottle from...oh, darn...what is the place...they just got in a new stock of Un Lys...starts with an A? Anyway, at the bottom they asked for my fragrance requests. So, I thought I would just get one or two of them. When they sent Un Lys, they also sent every sample I requested. I was so impressed! Yes, I spent $120 on Un Lys and that is part of customer service. My point is that samples are out there-- just ask.

That would be Aedes, great store!

Yes, samples are out there, but not of everything, and once your collection gets to be over 50-100 bottles, decants start looking very attractive. Buying even 50 ml of something is no longer very appealing to me -- I'll never using it up.

*Long wail of dismay coming from Central Texas*

I feel like I should buy a small safe for my Chergui decant now, as I sincerely doubt I'll ever own a bottle. I came to your post after shopping for decants...grrrrr....

On the other hand, I have faith in the ingenuity and passion of the perfumista community. Maybe we could set up a site hosted in Canada...? Interesting to think through how this does and doesn't compare to music/video sharing...

That's a joke, that comment about Canada. But who knows?

I really don't think it relates to music sharing at all, just used that above as an example of the fact that buying something doesn't always give you legal rights over how you dispose of your "property".

And cracking up at the idea of underground decanters hiding out in Canada :-)

First, the idea of perfume swapping going underground or to Canada cracks me up. I'd have to show up at a speak-easy, do the shave-and-a-haircut knock, and a porthole will slide open allowing me to see a pair of eyes. I'd then have to check my encrypted reference of perfume names and ask for Hair on Hackle of Blue Greyhound number 2169, which I'll quickly shove into the lining of my London Fog before I pull the Fedora over my forehead and slink away.

Second, I just bought a garden hoe. It came with an RTU License (that's Right To Use, for you other folks). It said: GardenHoe Manufacturing Limited gives one RTU to purchaser of HooeyHoe hoeing product. RTU extends only to purchaser or immediate family or people in co-domicile provided number of said people not exceed 2. RTU covers hoeing on purchaser property, but may be extended to cover hoeing on other properties if used by purchaser. It is illegal to offer HooeyHoe for loan to neighbors with the expectation of returned gain in beers & barbecue. Uses in violation of RTU not covered by any consumer protection law, indeed, any damn law. Each violation of RTU punishable by 40 lashes and 40 days in the clink.

It's true, I SWEAR! :)

LOL -- that is awesome, thanks for posting!

ROTFL!

I appreciate the concern you all have here, but it's really not that big a deal. Ebay has outlawed plenty of things and there is a way around it like someone earlier pointed out. People can't sell certain computer things so instead they sell something else and give the computer item away.

Sell the decanting bottle and GIVE the decanted perfume away. Sell a set of stickers or business cards or what ever and I believe you will be fine. So long as you are not selling it specifically I think is the rule then it is ok and it's perfectly simple.

And please instead of acting like the end of the world about something, do a bit of research first before wide spread panic breaks out.

Thanks for your input.